The plot to bomb Syria is supposedly aimed at battling the self-styled “Islamic State” (also known as ISIS and ISIL) — a terror group that has been among the top beneficiaries of the U.S. government’s controversial machinations in Syria thus far. Another newly unveiled fear-mongering tool, a supposed terror organization labeled the “Khorasan Group,” is also allegedly in Obama’s crosshairs. However, as the bombs were raining down on Syria, top administration officials were openly celebrating their half-baked plan to help overthrow the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad, too. The Syrian despot, like Libya’s Gadhafi, was a U.S. ally in the “terror war” until what analysts described as Obama “switching sides” in the effort.

If the Obama administration’s plan to shower more arms and training on so-called “moderate” jihadist rebels to oust Assad succeeds, it will represent a major victory for Islamist forces often allied with ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria. It will also bring the Islamist goal of a completely sharia-dominated Middle East one step closer to fruition. The consequences for Christians, Shia Muslims, and other minorities will be devastating as well, with even the Obama-backed “moderate” Free Syrian Army openly vowing on television to exterminate the ancient communities. Yet another terror state in the Middle East would also endanger U.S. and global security, analysts observed.

Of course, Obama originally cited the Assad regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons as justification for bombing Syria. That failed in spectacular fashion even before the lies were ultimately exposed, with Congress and the American people overwhelmingly opposed to becoming directly involved in another Middle Eastern war. This time, Obama just decided to ignore Americans’ elected representatives, absurdly claiming that previous congressional authorizations for war passed more than a decade ago somehow justified yet another in Syria.

Now, however, after having empowered ISIS and other terror groups via its behind-the-scenes support for jihadists in Syria, the administration is pointing to those less “moderate” Syrian rebels as the excuse for openly bombing Syria and overtly backing other jihadists. The New American magazine and numerous other alternative media outlets have been reporting on the scheming and where it was headed for months. The increasingly discredited establishment press, though, appears to be just catching on to the agenda in recent days when official statements were made about it.

This week, Obama’s ambassador to the dictator-packed UN, Samantha Power, even admitted that deposing Assad was among the goals of the administration’s scheming. “But may I add, the training also will service these troops in the same struggle that they've been in since the beginning of this conflict against the Assad regime,” Power said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. Various anti-Assad Sunni Muslim dictatorships in the region, some of which helped create ISIS, are also supposedly fighting on Obama’s side in the effort to “fight ISIS” and depose the longtime Syrian despot.

Ironically, some of the “moderate” rebel groups working with the Obama administration and its unsavory Middle East allies criticized the bombing campaign. “We regret that the international community has come up with partial solutions to the Syrian conflict in which hundreds of thousands were killed or detained by the Assad regime,” Syrian “National Coalition” boss Nasr al-Hariri was quoted as saying in media reports. In what sounded like a veiled threat, al-Hariri also said that anything other than attacking the Assad dictatorship would only fuel more Islamic extremism. The regime in Damascus, of course, is locked in mortal combat with ISIS.

While news reports and sources on the ground said the air strikes appeared to be limited thus far to certain jihadist groups, the administration has made clear that, as a U.S. military spokesman put it, this is “only the beginning.” Secretary of State John Kerry made similar remarks. “There's definitely a second day and there'll be a third and a fourth” in the unconstitutional war against Syria and certain less-moderate jihadists, he told CNN in an interview on Wednesday. “This will go on for some time in several forms.”

Of course, the Obama administration claims that its goal is to “degrade and ultimately destroy” jihadists operating under the Islamic State banner. As The New American and countless others have documented, however, ISIS would almost certainly not even exist if not for the U.S. government’s scheming in Syria — ranging from bankrolling opposition forces under the Bush administration to semi-secretly supplying training and weapons to jihadists amid the civil war. Many of the weapons sent to “moderate” rebels have gone directly to ISIS fighters, and entire brigades of “moderate” rebels have joined the terror group with their U.S.-provided weaponry and training.

In a supremely ironic twist to the conflict, right around the time that congressional warmongers in both parties voted to support Obama’s plan to openly back “moderate” rebels, news reports emerged of a non-aggression pact between rebel forces and the Islamic State. The agreement states that “the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime,” AFP and other media outlets quoted it as saying. The term “Nussayri” is a slur used to describe the Islamic Shia denomination Alawite to which Assad and many Syrians belong. A spokesman for the Obama-backed Sunni “Free Syrian Army” (FSA) rebels had previously vowed on television to exterminate all Shia Muslims, not just Alawites.

Before that, Obama’s FSA “moderate” rebels, who have come under fire for war crimes, cannibalism, massacring Christians, and more, were proudly boasting of their collaboration with al-Qaeda outfits in Syria as well as ISIS. ”We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the [al-Qaeda-linked] Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in ... Qalamoun,” commander Bassel Idriss with the Obama-backed FSA recently told Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper.

Islamic State operatives have also openly touted their links to Obama’s “moderate” rebels in major international media outlets. “We are buying weapons from the FSA,” ISIS fighter Abu Atheer was quoted as saying by Al-Jazeera. “We bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti-tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.” Middle Eastern officials quoted in media reports have even accused the Obama administration of training actual ISIS fighters at a secret base in Jordan.

The latest outline of the Obama administration’s plotting in Syria involves the training and equipping of some 5,000 “moderate” jihadist rebels under the guise of fighting ISIS. At the same time, “years” of bombing various targets is expected — with all of the “collateral damage” that entails. In reality, however, the real objectives include “regime change,” manufacturing more threats to terrorize humanity, and advancing the globalist agenda. Considering the previously unimaginable scheming of the Obama administration in the Middle East — especially supporting al Qaeda-linked jihadists in their bid to seize control of Libya from a former "terror war" ally — there should be no doubt that the latest “anti-ISIS” plan will boost the forces of Islamic terror and ultimately, globalism. This time, though, the political class enabling Obama and his “allies” cannot claim to have been unaware.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.

No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.

No product advertisements.

Please post comments in English.

Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.

Comments that we consider abusive, spammy, off-topic, or harassing will be removed.

If our filtering system detects that you may have violated our policy, your comment will be placed in a queue for moderation. It will then be either approved or deleted. Once your comment is approved, it will then be viewable on the discussion thread.

If you need to report a comment, please flag it and it will be reviewed. Thank you again for being a valued reader of The New American.